Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this appeal, the court considered the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw from a person involved in a car accident, where unconsciousness or unresponsiveness occurred in a hospital about 90 minutes after the incident. The defendant, Francisco Andres Alvarez, was involved in a fatal car accident and was transported to the hospital. He appeared unresponsive approximately 90 minutes after the accident. An officer, suspecting Alvarez was under the influence of alcohol, requested a blood draw without obtaining a warrant. The blood test revealed a 0.05 percent blood alcohol level with the presence of cocaine and THC.Alvarez moved to suppress the blood testing results, arguing that the officer had ample time to obtain a warrant and that no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw. The trial court initially granted the motion, but later, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Mitchell v. Wisconsin), the court reconsidered and denied the motion, ruling that exigent circumstances permitted a blood test without a warrant.On appeal, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District of the State of California reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The court concluded that no exigent circumstances, as defined in Mitchell v. Wisconsin or Schmerber v. California, allowed a warrantless blood draw in this case. The court found that the officer had ample time to obtain a warrant and no emergency medical interventions were required that would have justified the warrantless blood draw. Furthermore, the court found that the officer did not reasonably and in good faith rely on California's implied consent statute, which allows for a blood draw without a warrant if the driver is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusal. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Alvarez's motion to suppress the blood test results and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. View "P. v. Alvarez" on Justia Law

In this case, the Sitka Tribe of Alaska challenged the State of Alaska's management of a commercial fishery, arguing that it harmed a subsistence fishery. The tribe argued that the state violated the subsistence priority statute and the common use and sustained yield clauses in the Alaska Constitution. The tribe also claimed that the state was misinterpreting a regulation controlling the fishery and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from managing the fishery according to that interpretation during the upcoming season. The superior court denied the preliminary injunction.The tribe eventually won on its statutory and regulatory claim, but the superior court denied its constitutional claim and its request for attorney’s fees. The tribe appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska.The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decisions. It held that the hard look doctrine, requiring agencies to consider all relevant information, already existed and there was no need to create a constitutional requirement not in the plain language of Article VIII, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution. The court also declined to review the tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction under the public interest exception, as the issue was moot and did not justify application of the public interest exception. Lastly, the court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award attorney’s fees as the tribe had not shown that the superior court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive. View "Sitka Tribe of Alaska v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the State University of Iowa, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, and the University of Northern Iowa were required to be members of the Iowa Individual Health Benefit Reinsurance Association (IIHBRA) and therefore had to pay assessments to the association. The universities had argued that they were not members of IIHBRA and that the statute requiring them to pay assessments violated the Iowa Constitution, which prohibits the state from acting as a surety for another. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the statutory scheme did not violate the constitution and that the universities, as providers of health benefit plans, were indeed members of IIHBRA. The court also ruled that IIHBRA was statutorily authorized to impose late payment fees against its members. However, the court denied IIHBRA's request for attorney fees and costs. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Iowa Individual Health Benefit Reinsurance Ass’n v. State University of Iowa" on Justia Law

The case concerns the appeal of Gilbert Perez, who sought to have his federal drug conviction overturned on the basis that the United States District Court for the District of Maine had incorrectly denied his motion to suppress the outcomes of a warrantless search of his backpack. Perez argued that the search was not justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The District Court, relying on a previous case (United States v. Eatherton), had upheld the search. Perez contended that subsequent Supreme Court decisions had undermined the validity of Eatherton.On the night of his arrest, Perez had been seen acting suspiciously in a McDonald’s parking lot in Lawrence, Massachusetts. When he left the lot, carrying a backpack, he was monitored by state troopers. He was seen exiting a taxi, and large quantities of cash were found in the vehicle, arousing suspicion that he had been involved in a drug transaction. When Perez returned to the McDonald’s lot, he was approached by Trooper Jason Conant, who identified himself as a state trooper. Perez ran but was caught, and the backpack was removed from him and searched. The search revealed it contained fentanyl and cocaine. Perez was subsequently indicted on a federal drug-related charge.In his appeal, Perez maintained that the backpack's search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed, affirming the judgement of conviction. It concluded that neither of the Supreme Court cases cited by Perez had invalidated the Eatherton ruling. The panel also rejected the notion that Perez's backpack could be considered separate from his person at the time of arrest. As such, it fell within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. View "US v. Perez" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Mathew Nelson, appealed his sentence for sexual assault, gross sexual imposition, and corruption of a minor. He argued that the district court relied on impermissible factors when determining his sentence and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the district court had the discretion to consider the sentencing factors provided in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 and that it had not relied on impermissible factors. The Court noted that there was evidence in the record to support the court’s consideration of Nelson’s ability to control his behavior when considering the length of his sentence and that the future harm caused by Nelson’s conduct was a permissible sentencing factor to consider.The Court also found that Nelson’s argument that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not adequately articulated or supported, and therefore did not need to be addressed further. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s criminal judgments. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In the case, Jose Martinez Jr. was convicted by a jury in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, for two counts of incest, criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, solicitation to commit tampering with witnesses or informants, and three counts of criminal contempt. This case arose from allegations by Martinez's stepdaughter, S.M., that he had been sexually abusing her since she was 10 years old. The trial court allowed the admission of statements made by S.M. to a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) and a physician, despite Martinez's objection that their admission violated his right of confrontation as S.M. was not present to testify at the trial.The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed Martinez's conviction. It held that S.M.'s statements to the physician were nontestimonial and made for purposes of medical treatment, and thus, were admissible under Montana Rule of Evidence 803(4). However, the court found that S.M.'s statements to the SANE were testimonial and their admission violated Martinez's right to confrontation. Nevertheless, the court ruled that this error was harmless given other evidence produced at trial and because the SANE's testimony was cumulative.The court's decision reflected the distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements in the context of the right to confrontation, and the admissibility of statements for purposes of medical treatment under the rules of evidence. The court also demonstrated the application of the harmless error doctrine in the context of a Confrontation Clause violation. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the drug-trafficking and money-laundering convictions of Benjamin Galecki and Charles Burton Ritchie for their distribution of "spice," a synthetic cannabinoid product. The defendants were found guilty of manufacturing and distributing spice through their company, Zencense Incenseworks, LLC. The drug-trafficking charges were based on the premise that the cannabinoid used, XLR-11, was treated as a controlled substance because it was an "analogue" of a listed substance. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their convictions should be set aside due to Fourth Amendment violations, insufficient evidence, and vagueness of the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986. However, the court reversed their mail and wire fraud convictions due to insufficient evidence. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "USA V. GALECKI" on Justia Law

The case involves Brandon Peterson, an inmate at Washington County Jail (WCJ), who filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights by various jail officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reviewing the case, had to decide on numerous instances of alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as well as constitutional and state law claims.The court found that on several occasions of alleged excessive force, the officers' actions were justified given Peterson's disruptive and threatening behavior. Consequently, the court granted qualified immunity to the officers involved in these incidents. In the case of the failure to intervene claims, the court decided that without an underlying constitutional violation, there can be no liability for failure to intervene, resulting in the officers being granted qualified immunity for these claims as well.On the issue of deliberate indifference to Peterson's mental health condition, the court found that the prison officials had made efforts to address his condition and had not acted with deliberate disregard for his health. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the officials involved.Regarding Peterson's claim of being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the court remanded the case to the district court for it to address this issue. The court also remanded the case to the district court to decide on the state law and Monell claims. As such, the Appeals Court reversed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated in part the district court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Peterson v. Heinen" on Justia Law

A group of voters and officials in Wisconsin brought a case before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, arguing that the state's current legislative districts were not contiguous and therefore violated the state constitution. The respondents countered that the districts were contiguous, as they included separate, detached territories known as "municipal islands." The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the current legislative districts did not meet the contiguity requirements of the state constitution. The court explained that "contiguous territory" means territory that is physically touching, and the current districts, which include separate, detached parts, do not meet this requirement. The court also rejected the respondents' defenses of lack of standing, laches, issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and judicial estoppel. As a remedy, the court enjoined the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections and urged the legislature to pass legislation creating new maps that satisfy all legal requirements. The court also set forth a process for adopting new state legislative districts if the legislature fails to enact new maps. View "Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law

In the case being reviewed, Alfredo Ramirez was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual offenses against minors and was sentenced to 107 years in prison. Ramirez appealed, arguing that the evidence obtained from his phone, which was unlocked using his fingerprint, was obtained unlawfully and violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also argued that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse victims’ responses, incorrectly instructed the jury, and imposed fines without determining his ability to pay.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, disagreed with Ramirez and affirmed the judgment. The court held that using Ramirez's fingerprint to unlock his phone did not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment or violate his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination. The court also found no violation of Ramirez's due process rights. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury or in admitting the expert testimony. Finally, the court found that Ramirez had forfeited his right to challenge the imposed fines and fees due to his failure to object at sentencing. View "P. v. Ramirez" on Justia Law